My conservative readers and friends tell me that my options now are to get on board the George W. Bush bandwagon, consign myself to ideological irrelevancy, or hold my tongue for four years while I contemplate how to “repackage” my politics to be more acceptable to the American people.

Alas, none of those options appeals to me. My ideology is shaped by my analyses of issues, not by parties or candidates — I opposed Bush because I opposed the invasion of Iraq, not the other way around. So it takes more than the outcome of an election to make me doubt my stances on issues; all Nov. 2 showed me is that more people disagreed with me than agreed with me, not that they are right and I am wrong.

But that’s not insignificant. As a liberal “blue state” guy (living in a blue area of a red state), the election showed there is an America I truly don’t comprehend. It’s clear “red state” folks see things I don’t see.

So the outcome of the election presents me with the opportunity, if not the obligation, to take a much closer look at the rhetoric of Red America. Maybe I’m missing something. Or maybe they are. I’ve got four long years to sort it out.

I’m most puzzled by this business about morality, which many analysts say tipped the election to Bush. I’ve always figured morality had to do with the individual choices each of us has a right to make. Other people might not like your choices, but this is a free country, isn’t it?

And in a free country, not only do I have the right to make my own moral decisions, others have the freedom to try to persuade me to make different choices. In fact, I’ve always regarded persuasion as the moralist’s only proper tool; I’m not really making a moral choice — and you’re not really promoting morality — if you’re forcing me to do what you believe I should do.

Red-state moralists, for example, apparently believe adults shouldn’t be able to choose their desired spouses. Most approve of using tax money to promote Christianity in schools, courtrooms and other government facilities.

And most red-staters apparently believe government should be able to force a woman to remain pregnant whether she wants to or not.

I’d think red-staters would have confidence in their faith and the strength of their convictions to persuade people to make the right moral choices — and do everything in their power to keep government emphatically secular and out of the morality business. Yet it seems to be just the opposite.

Now I understand pro-lifers believe life begins at fertilization, and that a fetus has full rights as a human being. But a fetus can only survive while attached to another human being — who most certainly has rights. Whose rights should take precedence?

I see this as a moral issue that can only be guided by the conscience of the individual involved. The pro-choice stance doesn’t compel any woman to have an abortion — but the pro-life stance compels all pregnant women to carry to term. This position spares red-state moralists the need to persuade women to decide as they would — why waste time encouraging a woman to do the right thing when you can just use the government to force her to do it?

Some pro-lifers argue that murder is immoral, too, and government most certainly punishes those who commit it. I agree murder is immoral, but that’s not why it’s a criminal act. It’s outlawed because we have collectively agreed that a proper society shouldn’t allow harm to befall someone at the hands of another so “moral choice” isn’t the issue.

So isn’t abortion murder? Does a mother commit “murder” by detaching this thing from her body? Abortion is the ultimate moral issue: Either the fetus or the mother must be denied rights in the end.

Which is precisely why I don’t feel government is wise enough to decide. We complain about government levying taxes, restricting hunting and fishing rights, making crazy zoning decisions — and instigating foolish wars. But we’re supposed to trust politicians to resolve the exquisitely moral issue of abortion?

Not me — I’d rather trust women to decide for themselves, with the help of their doctors. But Nov. 2 said Red America thinks otherwise. I’ll be interested to learn why.

— Robert Steinback is a columnist for The Miami Herald. His e-mail address is rsteinback@herald.com.